Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. There is no dispute whatsoever that all the four decree holders including the parties in this CRP at the relevant time got attached the amounts of the judgment-debtor which were lying with the ONGC by way of attachment. The attachment was effected in alt the four suits. However, the attachment before Judgment petition filed by the petitioner herein (decree holder in OS No. 227 of 1995) had been dismissed while decreeing the suit for whatever reasons.

5. The decree holders among themselves contended before the trial Court that the decree holders in OS Nos. 227 of 1995 and 34 of 1996 are not entitled to claim rateable, since they have not filed Execution petitions. The decree-holder in OS No. 34 of 1996 is claiming rateable distribution of the amounts among all the decree holders. The contention of the decree holders in OS Nos. 227 of 1995 and 232 of 1995 is that the decree holder in OS Nos. 234 of 1995 and 34 of 1996 are not entitled to claim rateable distribution.

6. The trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that all the decree-holders are entitled to rateable distribution of the amounts which are lying to the credit of OS Nos.232 of 1995 and 234 of 1995.

7. In this CRP Sri M.S.K. Sastry, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the other decree holders are not entitled for any rateable distribution of the amounts for the reason that they did not file the execution petition under Order 21, Rule 11 of CPC as is required in law. In nutshell, it is the submission of the learned senior Counsel that the other decree holders are not entitled for the benefit of Section 73 of the CPC.

8. Before adverting to the question as to whether the decree-holders other than the petitioner herein are not entitled for the benefit of the distribution of the assets and as to whether they are not entitled for the benefit of Section 73 of CPC it may be necessary to notice under Section 73 of the CPC.

73. Proceeds of execution sale to be rateably distributed among decree-holders:--

(1) Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realisation, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons :

11. In the instant case there is no controversy that the petitioner decree-holder alone filed an execution petition under Order 21, Rule 11 of CPC. But there is also no controversy whatsoever that the other decree-holders have already filed applications for attaching the amounts even before the decree and judgments were passed by the Court.

12. Learned senior Counsel would place reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in Moka Jambanna v. Kopparam Honnappa, AIR 1957 AP 1017, in support of his submission that the important condition for the applicability if Section 73 is that the party seeking rateable distribution should have filed an application for execution of the decree for the payment of money before the receipt of assets. In the said judgment this Court laid down that the important condition, therefore, is that the part seeking rateable distribution should have filed an application for execution of the decree for the payment of money before the receipt of assets. In that particular case, the learned District Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner therein was not an execution petition as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 11 of CPC and therefore, the necessary condition laid down under Section 73 was not complied with. The Court having examined the application filed by the petitioner therein found that the application was in fact filed under Order 21, Rule 11 of CPC. In the circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner therein satisfied the requirement as is provided under Section 73 of the Code to have the benefit of rateable distribution amongst themselves. The case is not an authority for the proposition that the parties seeking rateable distribution should have filed an application for execution under Order 21, Rule 11 of CPC alone only. No doubt in the said case the learned District Munsif misconstrued the application filed by the decree-holder therein and held that it was not filed under Order 21, Rule 11 of CPC. This Court reversed the view of the learned District Munsif and found that in fact it was an application filed under Order 21, Rule 11 of CPC.